The newest data from the National Crime Victim Survey (NCVS) shows that men are the victims in 38% of all rapes. [1] It is unclear why the statistics have gone up to such an extent. The last survey showed that men were victims in only 14% of rapes. [1] The only explanation people have put forward is that the Penn State rape revelations have led to more men being willing to admit they were sexually abused. [1] The new NCVS data shows that we need to "completely rethink our assumptions about sexual victimization, and especially our fallback model that men are always the perpetrators and women the victims." [1]

One victim describes why he formerly did not classify what happened to him as "rape." [1] It was because the classic model is that rape is penetrative. [1] "I used to say, when some part of me was still ashamed of what had been done to me, that I was "molested" because the man who played skillfully with my 8-year-old penis, who put it in his mouth, who put his lips on mine and tried to push his tongue in as deep as it would go, did not anally rape me. " Instead of delineating what he had done, I chose "molestation" hoping that would convey what had happened to me. Of course it doesn"t. For listeners to appreciate and understand what I had endured, I needed to risk that they will gag or rush out of the room. I needed to be particular and clear as to the details . . . . [W]hen I say I was raped people will understand what I truly mean." [1]

One major factor in why men previously did not want to admit to being "raped" was that rape has historically been defined as something that only happens to women. [2] Until 1927, the definition of rape in the United States was "carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will." [2] This definition was problematic not only because it required that the victim be female, but it also required that "force" be used. At English common law, force was a required element and women who did not fight off their attacker (and leaves bruises or scratches on him) were not capable of proving a rape charge. The reason for this was that rape, in olden-day England, was often a *defense.* Women would typically be charged with fornication or adultery, both of which were crimes, and would defend by claiming to have been raped. So proof of "force" and fighting back were required because it was believed that women would often be lying (and they probably often were, if every instance of sex outside marriage was prosecuted). The definition has changed a lot since then, coming to encompass males and jettisoning the "force" required. Instead, today we focus on consent. We recognize that force is not always necessary. The rapist can use drugs, so force is unnecessary. [2] Victims do not always react the way we expect them to. Even a perfectly capable victim may react by going catatonic. The failure to fight back is not proof of consent.

But the historical definition of rape has meant that men feel uncomfortable saying they were raped. Rape is something that happens to women. Rape means you were incapable of fighting off your attacker. A man who "let himself" get raped may be perceived as not manly enough to have fought off a less powerful female. Yet even very manly men get raped. A former marine was raped by a woman who took advantage of him in his drunk state. [2] When he woke up mid-rape, she urged him to "go back to sleep." [2] Even men trained by the military's most rigorous combat branch are capable of being raped. And it says nothing about their ability to fight back. It says only something about the morals of their attacker.

Rape of males is also a serious problem in prisons. A 1992 study by the Federal Bureau of Prisons found that between 9 and 20 percent of inmates had been sexually assaulted. Rape in prisons is largely ignored by prison officials. [3] There is a de facto understanding between the prison officials and the powerful inmates that as long as these inmates are cooperative with authorities on other things, the prison will turn a blind eye to their sexual crimes. [3] One raped inmate attempted to report the crime to the prison authorities, and "[t]hey told [him] flat out: we don't care." [3] Kerry Max Cook was convicted of murder, but released from death row after 22 years when he was proven innocent. [3] He says that when the judge handed down his sentence, he didn't say that he would be raped and tortured for 22 years. To some extent, society seems to tolerate rape in prisons because it seems like another facet of punishment. People who have harmed society in some way deserve what they get.

So what are the solutions here to male rape? How can society make it more socially acceptable for men to come forward? How can we redefine "rape" so both male and female victims do not feel stigamized by labeling themselves as rape victims? How do we deal with the serious problem of rape of male prisoners?

Bluesteel: The newest data from the National Crime Victim Survey (NCVS) shows that men are the victims in 38% of all rapes. [1] It is unclear why the statistics have gone up to such an extent. The last survey showed that men were victims in only 14% of rapes. [1] The only explanation people have put forward is that the Penn State rape revelations have led to more men being willing to admit they were sexually abused. [1]

Bluesteel:The new NCVS data shows that we need to "completely rethink our assumptions about sexual victimization, and especially our fallback model that men are always the perpetrators and women the victims." [1]

The Fool: Its feminist, more than any other group, who are responsible for the perpetuation of that model and the stereotype in Western society today.

Bluesteel: One victim describes why he formerly did not classify what happened to him as "rape." [1] It was because the classic model is that rape is penetrative. [1]

The Fool: There is some philosophy of language problems here, which assumes we are sure of what the thing that is rape is, already. That which is really rape changes depending on the definition of the word makes rape like a piece of clay which is nothing in particular, and is molded by mere terminology. The key point here is that it has to be something which is morally wrong" For example, my girlfriend can wake me up to blow job, which I enjoy, and that would constitute rape, in a non-penetrative sense, but it"s not morally wrong, since of course I enjoy that, and we would think it"s silly, to criminalize that. The problem comes when, somebody is able to change, a sexual experience into rape after the fact.. I believe this is where ethics, law, and understanding of language is key, in distinguishing what is morally unacceptable, it of course a nonsubjective way.

In other words, unlike feminist, it"s not a matter of simply criminalizing women or putting women in jail, that is to punish more people, as feminists generally want, as it is in regards to men who rape, that is, to prosecute and punish as many men as possible. But to prevent these kinds of harmful experiences from even happening.

Bluesteel: He was still ashamed of what had been done to me, that I was "molested" because the man who played skillfully with my 8-year-old penis, who put it in his mouth, who put his lips on mine and tried to push his tongue in as deep as it would go, did not anally rape me. "

The Fool: Statutory rape.

Bluesteel: Instead of delineating what he had done, I chose "molestation" hoping that would convey what had happened to me. Of course it doesn"t. For listeners to appreciate and understand what I had endured, I needed to risk that they will gag or rush out of the room. I needed to be particular and clear as to the details . . . . [W]hen I say I was raped people will understand what I truly mean." [1]

The definition has changed a lot since then, coming to encompass males and jettisoning the "force" required. Instead, today we focus on consent. We recognize that force is not always necessary. The rapist can use drugs, so force is unnecessary. [2] Victims do not always react the way we expect them to. Even a perfectly capable victim may react by going catatonic. The failure to fight back is not proof of consent.

The Fool: To me it seems like you trying to downplay feminist role in intentionally defining rape to prevent women from being possible rapist. As they were afraid that, there be false accusations against women. (As in the video)

Against The Ideologist

I will say something more constructive at the end.

(To be continued)

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

All the links and references are in the bottom of the video, where it says show more.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

Male on male prison rape is definitely a big problem. There are innocent people in prison, and plus even if they are guilty, torture is not part of their legally mandated sentence. That's unconstitutional.

Female on male rape is just about impossible unless the female is armed or the male is underage. There really is no way even a female pro athlete could force me to have sex with her, outside of holding a gun to my head. And I'm not even a particularly strong male. So this is not really a prevalent issue. I guess maybe if they use roofies, but I think that's about as rare as using a weapon.

Also, as a man it is painfully easy to just avoid putting yourself in 1-1 situations with women that you don't want to have sex with.

At 2/21/2015 2:58:43 PM, ford_prefect wrote:Male on male prison rape is definitely a big problem. There are innocent people in prison, and plus even if they are guilty, torture is not part of their legally mandated sentence. That's unconstitutional.

Female on male rape is just about impossible unless the female is armed or the male is underage. There really is no way even a female pro athlete could force me to have sex with her, outside of holding a gun to my head. And I'm not even a particularly strong male. So this is not really a prevalent issue. I guess maybe if they use roofies, but I think that's about as rare as using a weapon.

Also, as a man it is painfully easy to just avoid putting yourself in 1-1 situations with women that you don't want to have sex with.

The Fool: Lol! try saying that to Feminist about woman. They would call you Rape apologist. Or blaming the victim.<(8D)

BlueSteel: Yet even very manly men get raped. A former marine was raped by a woman who took advantage of him in his drunk state. [2] When he woke up mid-rape, she urged him to "go back to sleep."

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 2/21/2015 2:58:43 PM, ford_prefect wrote:Male on male prison rape is definitely a big problem. There are innocent people in prison, and plus even if they are guilty, torture is not part of their legally mandated sentence. That's unconstitutional.

Female on male rape is just about impossible unless the female is armed or the male is underage. There really is no way even a female pro athlete could force me to have sex with her, outside of holding a gun to my head. And I'm not even a particularly strong male. So this is not really a prevalent issue. I guess maybe if they use roofies, but I think that's about as rare as using a weapon.

Also, as a man it is painfully easy to just avoid putting yourself in 1-1 situations with women that you don't want to have sex with.

The Fool: Lol! try saying that to Feminist about woman. They would call you Rape apologist. Or blaming the victim.<(8D)

Yeah I know. I'm just pointing out the average size and strength discrepancy between the sexes.

BlueSteel: Yet even very manly men get raped. A former marine was raped by a woman who took advantage of him in his drunk state. [2] When he woke up mid-rape, she urged him to "go back to sleep."

At 2/21/2015 2:58:43 PM, ford_prefect wrote:Male on male prison rape is definitely a big problem. There are innocent people in prison, and plus even if they are guilty, torture is not part of their legally mandated sentence. That's unconstitutional.

The Fool: Raped in prison is bad if you consider that rape, according to feminists, is supposed to be considered one of the worst type of crimes to be done to person, then we send men to jail for nonviolent crimes, with a 20% chance of having the worst crime committed against them, and that's on top of what the actual punishment is supposed to be. And is not necessarily the place it's been designed for things to be going up. That's the only place where rape culture actually exist.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 2/21/2015 2:58:43 PM, ford_prefect wrote:Male on male prison rape is definitely a big problem. There are innocent people in prison, and plus even if they are guilty, torture is not part of their legally mandated sentence. That's unconstitutional.

Female on male rape is just about impossible unless the female is armed or the male is underage. There really is no way even a female pro athlete could force me to have sex with her, outside of holding a gun to my head. And I'm not even a particularly strong male. So this is not really a prevalent issue. I guess maybe if they use roofies, but I think that's about as rare as using a weapon.

Also, as a man it is painfully easy to just avoid putting yourself in 1-1 situations with women that you don't want to have sex with.

People often forget how often drinks get spiked by women.Ugly (Inside and out) women can be just as twisted as their male counterparts.When you're drugged, you can't resist anything.

At 2/21/2015 2:58:43 PM, ford_prefect wrote:Male on male prison rape is definitely a big problem. There are innocent people in prison, and plus even if they are guilty, torture is not part of their legally mandated sentence. That's unconstitutional.

Female on male rape is just about impossible unless the female is armed or the male is underage. There really is no way even a female pro athlete could force me to have sex with her, outside of holding a gun to my head. And I'm not even a particularly strong male. So this is not really a prevalent issue. I guess maybe if they use roofies, but I think that's about as rare as using a weapon.

Also, as a man it is painfully easy to just avoid putting yourself in 1-1 situations with women that you don't want to have sex with.

People often forget how often drinks get spiked by women.Ugly (Inside and out) women can be just as twisted as their male counterparts.When you're drugged, you can't resist anything.

You know, I seriously don't think that happens all that frequently. Obviously I can't prove this, but just from anecdotal evidence, during my entire 4 years in college, I never saw or heard of a single male who had his drink spiked, while attending an average of around 6 parties a month.

Also, I dont know what other people are doing, but to me it's just common sense to not let your drink out of your hand at a party, especially if you are around people you don't know very well.

Obviously its wrong to do it in the first place, male or female. I just dont think it's all that common, and even if it were, it's really easy to make sure it doesn't happen to you. People, male and female, should use common sense.

At 2/21/2015 2:58:43 PM, ford_prefect wrote:Male on male prison rape is definitely a big problem. There are innocent people in prison, and plus even if they are guilty, torture is not part of their legally mandated sentence. That's unconstitutional.

Female on male rape is just about impossible unless the female is armed or the male is underage. There really is no way even a female pro athlete could force me to have sex with her, outside of holding a gun to my head. And I'm not even a particularly strong male. So this is not really a prevalent issue. I guess maybe if they use roofies, but I think that's about as rare as using a weapon.

The last statistics I saw were that female on male rape constitutes about 1/7 of all rape cases.

Also, as a man it is painfully easy to just avoid putting yourself in 1-1 situations with women that you don't want to have sex with.

At 2/21/2015 2:58:43 PM, ford_prefect wrote:Male on male prison rape is definitely a big problem. There are innocent people in prison, and plus even if they are guilty, torture is not part of their legally mandated sentence. That's unconstitutional.

Female on male rape is just about impossible unless the female is armed or the male is underage. There really is no way even a female pro athlete could force me to have sex with her, outside of holding a gun to my head. And I'm not even a particularly strong male. So this is not really a prevalent issue. I guess maybe if they use roofies, but I think that's about as rare as using a weapon.

The last statistics I saw were that female on male rape constitutes about 1/7 of all rape cases.

Yeah, that still seems awfully high to me. Maybe some women are out there roofieing drinks like crazy, but I've certainly never seen any evidence of it. That being said, if they are counting statutory rape that is otherwise consensual, then I feel like that number is about right.

At 2/21/2015 2:58:43 PM, ford_prefect wrote:Male on male prison rape is definitely a big problem. There are innocent people in prison, and plus even if they are guilty, torture is not part of their legally mandated sentence. That's unconstitutional.

Female on male rape is just about impossible unless the female is armed or the male is underage. There really is no way even a female pro athlete could force me to have sex with her, outside of holding a gun to my head. And I'm not even a particularly strong male. So this is not really a prevalent issue. I guess maybe if they use roofies, but I think that's about as rare as using a weapon.

The last statistics I saw were that female on male rape constitutes about 1/7 of all rape cases.

Yeah, that still seems awfully high to me. Maybe some women are out there roofieing drinks like crazy, but I've certainly never seen any evidence of it. That being said, if they are counting statutory rape that is otherwise consensual, then I feel like that number is about right.

Drugging drinks is certainly a fairly common way to do it. For both sides.

At 2/21/2015 2:58:43 PM, ford_prefect wrote:Male on male prison rape is definitely a big problem. There are innocent people in prison, and plus even if they are guilty, torture is not part of their legally mandated sentence. That's unconstitutional.

Female on male rape is just about impossible unless the female is armed or the male is underage. There really is no way even a female pro athlete could force me to have sex with her, outside of holding a gun to my head. And I'm not even a particularly strong male. So this is not really a prevalent issue. I guess maybe if they use roofies, but I think that's about as rare as using a weapon.

Also, as a man it is painfully easy to just avoid putting yourself in 1-1 situations with women that you don't want to have sex with.

Emotional and psychological manipulation can occur from females to males just as it can from males to females.

"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

At 2/21/2015 2:58:43 PM, ford_prefect wrote:Male on male prison rape is definitely a big problem. There are innocent people in prison, and plus even if they are guilty, torture is not part of their legally mandated sentence. That's unconstitutional.

Female on male rape is just about impossible unless the female is armed or the male is underage. There really is no way even a female pro athlete could force me to have sex with her, outside of holding a gun to my head. And I'm not even a particularly strong male. So this is not really a prevalent issue. I guess maybe if they use roofies, but I think that's about as rare as using a weapon.

Also, as a man it is painfully easy to just avoid putting yourself in 1-1 situations with women that you don't want to have sex with.

Emotional and psychological manipulation can occur from females to males just as it can from males to females.

Yeah, and while I agree it's despicable, it isn't rape. If you are of age, you have to be responsible for your actions. There's a big difference between holding someone down and forcing them to have sex with you or threatening them with violence if they don't give in, and messing with their emotions to convince them to give you sex.

At 2/21/2015 2:58:43 PM, ford_prefect wrote:Male on male prison rape is definitely a big problem. There are innocent people in prison, and plus even if they are guilty, torture is not part of their legally mandated sentence. That's unconstitutional.

Female on male rape is just about impossible unless the female is armed or the male is underage. There really is no way even a female pro athlete could force me to have sex with her, outside of holding a gun to my head. And I'm not even a particularly strong male. So this is not really a prevalent issue. I guess maybe if they use roofies, but I think that's about as rare as using a weapon.

Also, as a man it is painfully easy to just avoid putting yourself in 1-1 situations with women that you don't want to have sex with.

People often forget how often drinks get spiked by women.Ugly (Inside and out) women can be just as twisted as their male counterparts.When you're drugged, you can't resist anything.

You know, I seriously don't think that happens all that frequently. Obviously I can't prove this, but just from anecdotal evidence, during my entire 4 years in college, I never saw or heard of a single male who had his drink spiked, while attending an average of around 6 parties a month.

Apparently you've never been black out drunk.... You don't need to be drugged to be so out of it you can't fight someone off.

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)

At 2/21/2015 2:58:43 PM, ford_prefect wrote:Male on male prison rape is definitely a big problem. There are innocent people in prison, and plus even if they are guilty, torture is not part of their legally mandated sentence. That's unconstitutional.

Female on male rape is just about impossible unless the female is armed or the male is underage. There really is no way even a female pro athlete could force me to have sex with her, outside of holding a gun to my head. And I'm not even a particularly strong male. So this is not really a prevalent issue. I guess maybe if they use roofies, but I think that's about as rare as using a weapon.

Also, as a man it is painfully easy to just avoid putting yourself in 1-1 situations with women that you don't want to have sex with.

People often forget how often drinks get spiked by women.Ugly (Inside and out) women can be just as twisted as their male counterparts.When you're drugged, you can't resist anything.

You know, I seriously don't think that happens all that frequently. Obviously I can't prove this, but just from anecdotal evidence, during my entire 4 years in college, I never saw or heard of a single male who had his drink spiked, while attending an average of around 6 parties a month.

Apparently you've never been black out drunk.... You don't need to be drugged to be so out of it you can't fight someone off.

Correct. I've never made the choice to get blackout drunk because I like to be aware of my own actions at all times. Some people make the choice to get blackout drunk, knowing there is a risk that they will wake up in jail, or wake up in bed with someone they wouldn't have slept with otherwise, or wake up missing their cell phone or wallet, etc. With personal choices, comes personal responsibility.

I've seen friends of mine get blackout drunk and go walk upstairs to have sex with someone. If you are walking and talking under your own power, and agreeing to what's going on, sorry but I can't consider that rape. If someone passes out and is raped, yes obviously that's rape. But guys generally won't get it up if they're passed out.

I think that the way that we view rape is a problem. I actually came to this realization reading a fantasy novel, in which a race of winged people live a way of life which is basically communistic, with the only crime being choice-theft, which is denying someone the ability to choose their own fate. One of them has his wings cut off for 'choice-theft in the second degree, with utter disrespect', and comes to the protagonist of the stories in order to have his powers of flight restored. He is repentant throughout the book, though his crime is never understood until another garuda confronts the protagonist after traveling thousands of miles to beseech him not to reverse the judgement. This is the relevant excerpt:

"He is guilty," said Kar'uchai quietly, "of choice-theft in the second degree, with utter disrespect."

"What does that mean?" shouted Isaac. "What did he do? What"s f*cking choice-theft anyway? This means nothing to me."

"It is the only crime we have, Grimneb'lin," replied Kar'uchai in a harsh monotone. "To take the choice of another . . . to forget their concrete reality, to abstract them, to forget that you are a node in a matrix, that actions have consequences. We must not take the choice of another being. What is community but a means to . . . for all we individuals to have . . . our choices."

[...] (Explanation of choice-theft)

"Yagharek's was a heinous . . . a terrible forgetting. Theft in the second degree.

"What did he do?" shouted Isaac, and Lin woke with a fluttering of hands and a nervous twitching.

Ker'uchai spoke dispassionately.

"You would call it rape"

Oh, I would call it rape, would I? thought Isaac in a molten, raging sneer; but the torrent of livid contempt was not enough to drown his horror.

I would call it rape.

Isaac could not but imagine. Immediately.

The act itself, of course, though that was a vague and nebulous brutality in his mind (did he beat her? Hold her down? Where was she? Did she curse and fight back?) What he saw most clearly, immediately, were all of the vistas, the avenues of choice that Yagharek had stolen. Fleetingly, Isaac glimpsed the denied possibilites.

The choice not to have sex, not to be hurt. The choice not to risk pregnancy. And then . . . what if she had become pregnant? The choice not to abort? The choice not to have a child?

The choice to look at Yagharek with respect?

Isaac's mouth worked and Kar'uchai spoke again.

"It was my choice he stole."

It took a few seconds, a ludicrously long time, for Isaac to understand what Kar'uchai meant. Then he gasped and stared at her, seeing for the first time the slight swell of her ornamental breasts, as useless as bird-of-paradise plumage. He struggled for something to say, but he did not know what he felt: there was nothing solid for words to express.

He murmured some appallingly loose apology, some solicitation.

"I though you were the garuda magister . . . or the militia, or something," he said.

" We have none," she replied.

"Yag . . . a f*cking rapist," he hissed, and she clucked.

"He stole choice," she said flatly.

"He raped you," he said, and instantly Kar'uchai clucked again.

"He stole my choice," she said. She was not expanding on his words, Isaac realized: she was correcting him. "You cannot translate into your jurisprudence, Grimneb'lin," she said. She seemed annoyed.

Isaac tried to speak, shook his head miserably, stared at her and again saw the crime committed, behind his eyes.

"You cannot translate, Grimneb'lin," Kar'uchai repeated. "Stop. I can see . . . all the texts of your city's laws and morals that I have read . . . in you." Her tone sounded monotonous to him. The emotion in the pauses and cadences of her voice was opaque.

"I was not violated or ravaged, Grimneb'lin. I am not abused or defiled . . . or ravished or spoiled. You would call his actions rape, but I do not: that tells me nothing. He stole my choice, and that is why he was . . . judged. It was severe . . . the last sanction but one . . . There are many choice-thefts less heinous than his, and only a few more so . . . And there are others that are judged equal . . . many of those are actions utterly unlike Yagharek's. Some, you would not deem crimes at all.

This is followed by the protaganist agonizing over how to see his friend, and whether to let the judgement stand, and while it is superb stuff it cannot really be understood outside the context of the story.

I think that the way that we look at rape makes men uncomfortable with applying the label to themselves, and that this way of looking at rape is unfair to women as well. We see it as particularly heinous because it steals a woman's purity, we see it as a form of defilement, as victimization. This formulation makes it easier to justify because people have a harder time becoming morally outraged if the victim does not seem as if they were violated.

The focus is on the victimization, the hurt, the defilement, and these are things which, culturally, men are not supposed to admit to, or to avoid to begin with. This is where the shame of being a victim comes from. I think that the garuda outlook in Mieville's books is much more healthy: to see rape as a theft of choices, not as a defilement. As to how this can be changed, like most societal changes it starts with individual people. We need to each change how we see rape, and to slowly phase out the old ideology surrounding it by confronting it with a better way of framing the crime.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

At 2/21/2015 2:58:43 PM, ford_prefect wrote:Male on male prison rape is definitely a big problem. There are innocent people in prison, and plus even if they are guilty, torture is not part of their legally mandated sentence. That's unconstitutional.

The Fool: Raped in prison is bad if you consider that rape, according to feminists, is supposed to be considered one of the worst type of crimes to be done to person,

I'm a bit confused when you say "according to feminists". I thought pretty much everyone considered rape to be one of the worst type of crimes.

then we send men to jail for nonviolent crimes, with a 20% chance of having the worst crime committed against them, and that's on top of what the actual punishment is supposed to be.

Jails are not perfect, but they can be improved. We need better workers that actualy care about the prisoners, even if it is difficult to care about a criminal. Also I see you said "men", but women also go to jail and are humiliated there through rape and many other actions.

And is not necessarily the place it's been designed for things to be going up. That's the only place where rape culture actually exist.

This was a really interesting post... and passage. I'm just not sure what to do with it.

If we did reconceive rape as a "theft of choice," I don't think the punishment would be as severe. The book makes that point: the main character considers the punishment completely unjust when he thinks that it was for a "theft of choice." Only when he can put it into the context of "rape," with its connotations that the crime leaves the victim physically violated and emotionally broken, can the main character come to accept the punishment as just. As least as justified enough to let it stand.

Basically, this novel seems to expose that there is a double bind between (1) re-defining "rape" in a way to incentivize more people to come forward and (2) ensure that rape is sufficiently punished. Rape victims don't want to label what happened to them "rape" because they must then accept the judgment of society that they must now be "broken" in some way. And they don't want to see themselves as broken. Some in society might say they are "damaged goods," invoking images of purity, but I mean it only in the emotional sense. If society didn't think rape was harmful to the victim, other than denying a choice, it wouldn't punish it so severely. So to label a "rape" as merely a denial of choice would fundamentally lessen moral condemnation of the rapist. To label it a denial of "choice" seems to equate rape with a parent's decision to force their child to go to school. Or the government banning marijuana, thereby denying choice. Our choices are so constrained in so many ways.

Rape is already focused on the lack of consent, in terms of defining the crime itself. But I think the moral condemnation based on the *likely* effect on the victim is what informs the *punishment.* If we convince ourselves that all people who experience a rape are just fine and not "victims," it sure makes it harder to impose 20-year sentences. Although it would make it easier for people to come forward.

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)

This was a really interesting post... and passage. I'm just not sure what to do with it.

If we did reconceive rape as a "theft of choice," I don't think the punishment would be as severe. The book makes that point: the main character considers the punishment completely unjust when he thinks that it was for a "theft of choice." Only when he can put it into the context of "rape," with its connotations that the crime leaves the victim physically violated and emotionally broken, can the main character come to accept the punishment as just. As least as justified enough to let it stand.

Yeah, that's why the value of the excerpt is limited; the whole context of the book needs to be taken into account. By the end of the Isaac's long internal monologue he comes to the conclusion that he cannot help his friend because that would be condoning what he had done. Also, it's important to remember the fact that, for the garuda, all crime is choice-theft, the murder being the highest degree because it steals all choices. I'm not saying to adopt the garuda judicial system, just to expand what we see when we look at rape: don't just see a victim and a perpetrator, the defiler and the defiled. See what was taken from the victim in terms of choices, even if they appear to remain strong afterwards. Don't base the criminality on just the brokenness of the victim, but on the parts of their life which were removed from their control by the act.

Basically, this novel seems to expose that there is a double bind between (1) re-defining "rape" in a way to incentivize more people to come forward and (2) ensure that rape is sufficiently punished. Rape victims don't want to label what happened to them "rape" because they must then accept the judgment of society that they must now be "broken" in some way. And they don't want to see themselves as broken. Some in society might say they are "damaged goods," invoking images of purity, but I mean it only in the emotional sense. If society didn't think rape was harmful to the victim, other than denying a choice, it wouldn't punish it so severely. So to label a "rape" as merely a denial of choice would fundamentally lessen moral condemnation of the rapist. To label it a denial of "choice" seems to equate rape with a parent's decision to force their child to go to school. Or the government banning marijuana, thereby denying choice. Our choices are so constrained in so many ways.

This, I think, is a cultural problem. The author of the book is a communist, so he doesn't exactly see this from a light reform perspective; I just pulled this example to examine how we see rape, what angles we pay attention to, and which ones we largely ignore. Mieville would probably support a complete overhaul of the restraints on our choices; a garuda-esque society.

Rape is already focused on the lack of consent, in terms of defining the crime itself.

Yeah, and it's so often underplayed. As if, 'oh, here's the dry legal terminology that justifies it'. But that's really the crux of the issue, isn't it? Consent and choice. I just think that rape should be thought of more in those terms than ones of victimization.

But I think the moral condemnation based on the *likely* effect on the victim is what informs the *punishment.* If we convince ourselves that all people who experience a rape are just fine and not "victims," it sure makes it harder to impose 20-year sentences. Although it would make it easier for people to come forward.

But that mentality also makes it easier to argue that the victim was 'asking for it'. I feel like rape is treated much more seriously when the victim is virginal in some way; people just don't care as much if a 'slut' is raped, especially if she doesn't appear to be broken by the experience (maybe she's angry or cold instead of tortured, at least on the surface). With men, it could also be seen as the man failing to be powerful enough, as if the rape is a consequence of weakness. Ford actually comes close to this with his post on drunk rape: because the person did not ensure their own competence, they are responsible for what is done to them. A form of weakness (intoxication, submitting to peer pressure) justifies the rape, justifies the deprivation of the conscious, competent choice of that person to determine whom they have sexual contact with, because someone who agrees to sex isn't seen as a victim. There's a real danger to relying too heavily on emotional justifications like this; this is why we have moral outrage over date-rapists being given 'unfair' prison sentences: in this case, the validity of the punishment is rejected because the victim isn't seen as 'victimy' enough, and it is rejected while ignoring the problem of consent/choice because that angle is so under-emphasized.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

The law does account for the fact that people will view the victim differently if she or he is seen as sexually promiscuous. The law has made a victim's sexual history inadmissible in court.

But I see your point that society shouldn't care, which is more about what is in people's minds, not the procedural mechanisms we use to avoid people invoking the bias that is in their minds.

But I still don't see how you get around the punishment issue. If rape were re-contextualized around the denial of choice, rather than harm to the victim, how do you decide on the right punishment?

How are right punishments typically decided on? In a constitutional republic, our representatives vote on it, ultimately. I don't see any concrete connection between crime, justification, and punishment: it's all politics in the end. This means that, in a country with such unfortunate democratic leanings as ours, vox populi, vox dei. So this will all involve a shift of opinion.

As for the change itself, re-contextualizing rape around the denial of choice necessarily means asking ourselves why depriving someone of bodily sovereignty through sex without consent is wrong and anti-social, and why people within a society would want to curtail it through punishment. My point is that this social reform is crucial, and that we should be engaging in such conversations when the topic comes up, to open other people up to a new way of seeing rape which universalizes its unacceptability.

It's also well within possibility that I'm ignorant of sentencing in general; is there some protocol used to determine punishment aside from laws passed by legislative bodies and juries? Do judges always use existing legal guidelines when sentencing, or do they have a lot of leeway?

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

The law does account for the fact that people will view the victim differently if she or he is seen as sexually promiscuous. The law has made a victim's sexual history inadmissible in court.

But I see your point that society shouldn't care, which is more about what is in people's minds, not the procedural mechanisms we use to avoid people invoking the bias that is in their minds.

But I still don't see how you get around the punishment issue. If rape were re-contextualized around the denial of choice, rather than harm to the victim, how do you decide on the right punishment?

How are right punishments typically decided on? In a constitutional republic, our representatives vote on it, ultimately. I don't see any concrete connection between crime, justification, and punishment: it's all politics in the end. This means that, in a country with such unfortunate democratic leanings as ours, vox populi, vox dei. So this will all involve a shift of opinion.

As for the change itself, re-contextualizing rape around the denial of choice necessarily means asking ourselves why depriving someone of bodily sovereignty through sex without consent is wrong and anti-social, and why people within a society would want to curtail it through punishment. My point is that this social reform is crucial, and that we should be engaging in such conversations when the topic comes up, to open other people up to a new way of seeing rape which universalizes its unacceptability.

It's also well within possibility that I'm ignorant of sentencing in general; is there some protocol used to determine punishment aside from laws passed by legislative bodies and juries? Do judges always use existing legal guidelines when sentencing, or do they have a lot of leeway?

There are Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Judges have some leeway to depart from them, but rarely do.

The 8th Amendment also requires that the punishment fit the crime. The 14th Amendment requires that the punishment not be completely arbitrary. You need some logical rationale between why you punish some things more harshly than others. It's not enough to say: well people just voted for that law.

Which is why I was asking you how you justify the law normatively, not how you get it passed.

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)

At 2/22/2015 8:53:10 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:It's also well within possibility that I'm ignorant of sentencing in general; is there some protocol used to determine punishment aside from laws passed by legislative bodies and juries? Do judges always use existing legal guidelines when sentencing, or do they have a lot of leeway?

There are Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Judges have some leeway to depart from them, but rarely do.

The 8th Amendment also requires that the punishment fit the crime. The 14th Amendment requires that the punishment not be completely arbitrary. You need some logical rationale between why you punish some things more harshly than others. It's not enough to say: well people just voted for that law.

Which is why I was asking you how you justify the law normatively, not how you get it passed.

How is the punishment justified now? Is it the harm, or the fact that the person does not consent to intercourse? It seems to me that consent is enshrined in the law as the definition of the crime, but we still have the old baggage of violation hanging on in order to justify the punishment, even though the definition has changed. I don't know, maybe it's the fact that if we accepted that legal justification for punishment it would clash with a lot of existing laws, like those regulating drug use, so people are loathe to do it.

Are most criminal punishments justified on a basis of harm? I don't think things like three strike sentencing rules can be justified, in that case...

What about statutory rapes in cases where neither case claims that harm was caused (the ones that are within weeks of the limit, where it's basically a case of letter of the law over spirit of the law)? Or when two underage teenagers send nude pictures to each other and get charged with possession of child pornography? Harm can't be the justification there, as far as I see.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

At 2/22/2015 8:53:10 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:It's also well within possibility that I'm ignorant of sentencing in general; is there some protocol used to determine punishment aside from laws passed by legislative bodies and juries? Do judges always use existing legal guidelines when sentencing, or do they have a lot of leeway?

There are Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Judges have some leeway to depart from them, but rarely do.

The 8th Amendment also requires that the punishment fit the crime. The 14th Amendment requires that the punishment not be completely arbitrary. You need some logical rationale between why you punish some things more harshly than others. It's not enough to say: well people just voted for that law.

Which is why I was asking you how you justify the law normatively, not how you get it passed.

How is the punishment justified now? Is it the harm, or the fact that the person does not consent to intercourse? It seems to me that consent is enshrined in the law as the definition of the crime, but we still have the old baggage of violation hanging on in order to justify the punishment, even though the definition has changed. I don't know, maybe it's the fact that if we accepted that legal justification for punishment it would clash with a lot of existing laws, like those regulating drug use, so people are loathe to do it.

Are most criminal punishments justified on a basis of harm? I don't think things like three strike sentencing rules can be justified, in that case...

Harm or avoiding harm, typically. 3 Strikes Laws are aimed at keeping dangerous recidivists in jail, so they can't reoffend. Whether they accomplish this is a different question.

What about statutory rapes in cases where neither case claims that harm was caused (the ones that are within weeks of the limit, where it's basically a case of letter of the law over spirit of the law)? Or when two underage teenagers send nude pictures to each other and get charged with possession of child pornography? Harm can't be the justification there, as far as I see.

The law is aimed at protecting children too young to consent. It is simply overinclusive because you need some artificial cutoff point, but there's obviously no difference between someone is 17 years plus 364 days old, and someone who is 18.

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)

At 2/22/2015 8:53:10 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:It's also well within possibility that I'm ignorant of sentencing in general; is there some protocol used to determine punishment aside from laws passed by legislative bodies and juries? Do judges always use existing legal guidelines when sentencing, or do they have a lot of leeway?

There are Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Judges have some leeway to depart from them, but rarely do.

The 8th Amendment also requires that the punishment fit the crime. The 14th Amendment requires that the punishment not be completely arbitrary. You need some logical rationale between why you punish some things more harshly than others. It's not enough to say: well people just voted for that law.

Which is why I was asking you how you justify the law normatively, not how you get it passed.

How is the punishment justified now? Is it the harm, or the fact that the person does not consent to intercourse? It seems to me that consent is enshrined in the law as the definition of the crime, but we still have the old baggage of violation hanging on in order to justify the punishment, even though the definition has changed. I don't know, maybe it's the fact that if we accepted that legal justification for punishment it would clash with a lot of existing laws, like those regulating drug use, so people are loathe to do it.

Are most criminal punishments justified on a basis of harm? I don't think things like three strike sentencing rules can be justified, in that case...

Harm or avoiding harm, typically. 3 Strikes Laws are aimed at keeping dangerous recidivists in jail, so they can't reoffend. Whether they accomplish this is a different question.

What about statutory rapes in cases where neither case claims that harm was caused (the ones that are within weeks of the limit, where it's basically a case of letter of the law over spirit of the law)? Or when two underage teenagers send nude pictures to each other and get charged with possession of child pornography? Harm can't be the justification there, as far as I see.

The law is aimed at protecting children too young to consent. It is simply overinclusive because you need some artificial cutoff point, but there's obviously no difference between someone is 17 years plus 364 days old, and someone who is 18.

Exactly (regarding why there is an age restriction). The government has no choice but to impose a solid line age limit. The only other option would be for the government to administer some kind of test to achieve "adulthood." While that may be more accurate, no one (especially children and young adults) are going to trust the government to do that, so we are stuck with a hard age limit cut off.

How is the punishment justified now? Is it the harm, or the fact that the person does not consent to intercourse? It seems to me that consent is enshrined in the law as the definition of the crime, but we still have the old baggage of violation hanging on in order to justify the punishment, even though the definition has changed. I don't know, maybe it's the fact that if we accepted that legal justification for punishment it would clash with a lot of existing laws, like those regulating drug use, so people are loathe to do it.

Are most criminal punishments justified on a basis of harm? I don't think things like three strike sentencing rules can be justified, in that case...

Harm or avoiding harm, typically. 3 Strikes Laws are aimed at keeping dangerous recidivists in jail, so they can't reoffend. Whether they accomplish this is a different question.

So it's the intention of preventing/punishing harm which justifies the punishment more than the actual prevention of harm or punishment of actual harm?

What about statutory rapes in cases where neither case claims that harm was caused (the ones that are within weeks of the limit, where it's basically a case of letter of the law over spirit of the law)? Or when two underage teenagers send nude pictures to each other and get charged with possession of child pornography? Harm can't be the justification there, as far as I see.

The law is aimed at protecting children too young to consent. It is simply overinclusive because you need some artificial cutoff point, but there's obviously no difference between someone is 17 years plus 364 days old, and someone who is 18.

So the harm standard applies to the law in general, instead of all of the specific cases to which it is applied?

This seems very convoluted to me.

But I can see where your getting at, that the complete abandonment of 'rape is bad and should be punished because it harms' would lead to our legal system having trouble justifying punishment. Even though I still think it's a bad way for society to look at rape, I can see why seeking to eliminate that perception entirely would be impractical. Maybe it'd be better to look at rape through multiple lenses instead of a different one.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

Male on male prison rape is definitely a big problem. There are innocent people in prison, and plus even if they are guilty, torture is not part of their legally mandated sentence. That's unconstitutional.

The Fool: Raped in prison is bad if you consider that rape, according to feminists, is supposed to be considered one of the worst type of crimes to be done to person,

Otokage : I'm a bit confused when you say "according to feminists". I thought pretty much everyone considered rape to be one of the worst type of crimes.

The Fool: Many feminist if not most feminist would claim that rape is worse than being murdered. Or is somehow equally bad. But clearly, if we were forced to choose between being raped tonight, and are being murdered, all of us would choose the "rape". Over the murder. It"s like having a tumor would you rather have the surgery, which removes the tumor, which will suck, but you will continue to live or you rather just die from the tumor. Most rational people will get the tumor removed

Secondly,The Feminist definition of Rape, which is in the very one enforced by law, at least in Canada and United States, is defined so that only men could be rapist, as demonstrated in the second video, unless of course it"s statutory rape. Moreover, the feminist definition of rape is so broad that includes being brutally raped by force, and simply having drunk sex. That is, if a man and woman are drinking and have sex, she can later regret having sex, and charge him with rape, or at least hold it over his head to blackmail him. Only the woman can do that. Even if she fully consented at the time, she can claim that she was too drunk.Thus the definition is organized so responsibility for the man and the woman should they be drunk, is all on the man. And is not an accident. Did you know that before?

then we send men to jail for nonviolent crimes, with a 20% chance of having the worst crime committed against them, and that's on top of what the actual punishment is supposed to be.

Otokage: Jails are not perfect, but they can be improved. We need better workers that actualy care about the prisoners, even if it is difficult to care about a criminal.

The Fool: That's funny because feminist say that the best solution is to just stop sending woman jail. Therefore only send men to jail. Despite the fact that male jails are way worse, they're more likely to get brutally raped, more likely to commit suicide, and more likely be treated worse.

My point being that womans prison are not even that bad, nor is rape and epidemic there, and suicide in their jails is very low, and they get the lowest sentences for the same crimes. Men on the other hand already receive 63% higher sentences for the same crime, and are twice as likely to be incarcerated for the same crime.http://www.law.umich.edu...

And of course were talking brutally raped in one's A-S-S! Perhaps often even in front of people.

Forget about all the, STDs, and the fact that the highest rate of death in jails is due to AIDS.

Did you know that before? Probably not, because they don't give a sh!t.

Against The Ideologist

Know thyself

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL